Why is Microsoft underpowering One Laptop Per Child?
Boingboing is reporting that Microsoft is forcing OEMs into using artificially low hardware specifications. Even if you erroneously believe that OLPC is simply a matter of price tag, Microsoft's actions are puzzling, to say the least. Well, as long as you imagine that Microsoft is in it for the kids.
As Cory Doctorow notes:
Microsoft is trying to distort the market for cheap, tiny laptops by setting up artificial incentives to manufacturers to limit the power and capability of their lowest-cost units -- even if a vendor can figure out how to put more storage, a bigger screen, or a touchscreen into its machines, Microsoft doesn't want it there, and they'll punish any vendor that tries by refusing to license XP Home Edition on the same preferential terms that lower-spec machines get.
Why would Microsoft do this? More pertinently, why would OLPC sell out its ideals? IDG News Service suggests that Microsoft is trying to prevent cannibalization of its mainstream desktop market. That is an understandable goal, but not necessarily a laudable one given Microsoft's alleged intention to play fair with OLPC. I suspect something more is involved here.
What's the real goal? Eradication of Linux in a market where Microsoft is vulnerable:
By offering Windows XP Home Edition at bargain prices, Microsoft hopes to secure its place in the ULPC market and reduce the use of Linux, according to an official at one PC maker, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the program.
And certainly not in that way.
Linux is a natural fit for this emerging market. Microsoft, understandably, wants to cut Linux off at the knees. It's just unfortunate that Negroponte has capitulated: OLPC used to talk about freedom, then it tried to pretend it was simply about price...and now it's no longer even about price.
Who would have thought that the same organization that said this...
The Laptop will bring children technology as means to freedom and empowerment. The success of the project in the face of overwhelming global diversity will only be possible by embracing openness and by providing the laptop's users and developers a profound level of freedom.
...Could be the same one to cozy up to Redmond, when Microsoft clearly doesn't have the project's best interests at heart?
It's about giving kids the crappiest spec that Microsoft's market share can afford. That is shameful.
Matt Asay is general manager of the Americas and vice president of business development at Alfresco, and has nearly a decade of operational experience with commercial open source and regularly speaks and publishes on open-source business strategy. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
- Topics:
-
Industry news,
-
Microsoft
- Tags:
-
Microsoft,
-
OLPC,
-
Windows,
-
developing markets,
-
Linux
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
However relevant in reality, there is a perception in the market that Linux is limited in its support for esoteric hardware. In order to redress this imbalance, Microsoft will artificially shackle the hardware specifications to allow potential competitors (Linux :-0 , and that crowd in Cupertino) to take the technological high ground.
With credible competition at some point in the future, Microsoft is looking forward to rediscovering the innovative edge which has made it the global leader in what it does.
Steve
Who has to bring this to the attention of the authorities?
Or since last time Microsoft got away with a slap on the wrist, are those that can complain waiting for a political change?
I find the whole USA process very strange, even alien in its control by politicians, as we in Oz have a non politically aligned Commission to police this sort of behavior.
"This is a deliberate and commendable effort by Microsoft to level the playing field in the operating system market. Microsoft recognizes that competition is A GOOD THING, and promotes freedom and equity in all aspects of business."
.
Commendable effort? Level the playing field in the OS market? Microsoft recognizing that competition is a good thing?
.
Please enlighten me as to how controlling over 90% of the desktop OS market is a ?level playing field?? I am sure Microsoft feels competition is a ?good thing? as long as they can use their enormous financial resources to maintain their +90% monopoly, while doing other fun stuff like bribing people to ram their OOXML format though ISO, use their financially-fueled monopoly to push their insecure OS?s other proprietary formats and software down the world collective throats, all the while striving to crush all competition at each and every opportunity.
.
Promotes freedom and equity in all aspects of business? Are you joking? I suppose the EU fined Microsoft $1.4 B for no specific reason (at least in your mind, I would assume).
.
In this age of ?cyber-terrorism?, most security experts agree that we need as much OS diversity as possible exposed to the Internet. And a continuing with a Microsoft monopoly will not achieve that goal. Nor will continuing the use of XP in poorer countries, where it is unlikely that people will maintain anti-virus programs or use good-quality firewalls. The vast botnet which is the USA is a testament that even in ?wealthy? countries, people do not jump though all the many hoops to try and keep their insecure Microsoft systems free of trojans and viruses.
.
So please do the world a favor and stop drinking the Microsoft Koolaid ?.
By forcing hardware limits it keeps Windows on more machines and still forces users to 'upgrade' to Windows Vista to get higher performance hardware. Also, since Microsoft has so much influence with hardware manufacturers, it helps decrease the incentive to add higher performance hardware to their ULPC's that also run on other operating systems that could capitalize on the additional hardware.
Now back to the OLPC. The problem Cory Doctrow and Matt Asay have with this, aside from issues with Microsoft's questionable tactics is that Microsoft does not have the kids best interests at heart. Like everything else for Microsoft, it is simply a business strategy to cut off competing software any way they can.